General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

35. The problem is, Josh, andyou have captured it, is that there's the 2002 directive. Plus the

Thu Apr 24, 2014, 07:04 AM

Apr 2014

recent court case. So....since January, you have Verizon charging Netflix more, and Netflix utterly incapable of fighting back. And if Netflix isn't fighting back, then that gives you a pretty good judge of jus how well the FCC would fare, legally.

The "finagle" is the new rules.

The monkey "wrench?" The push for municipal broadband.

SCOTUS hearing net neutrality? A disaster.

We were screwed by the courts in January, and Congress could remedy, but they won't.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ahh, Memory Lane..."Obama's Bad Pick: A Former [Cable Industry] Lobbyist at the FCC" [View all] Maven Apr 2014 OP

So bad that Warren, Sanders, and Franken voted for him, unreservedly? Your OP is facile, because msanthrope Apr 2014 #1

Unreservedly you say? Maven Apr 2014 #2

Apparently, Sanders kept an open mind, kept his promise, and met with Wheeler and voted for him.... msanthrope Apr 2014 #3

"Senators Urge FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to �Move Quickly� to Preserve �Open Internet'" Maven Apr 2014 #6

I asked on another thread just how the reclassification was going to survive the same court...since msanthrope Apr 2014 #7

What? The FCC did not reclassify. Maven Apr 2014 #10

Yes--they did...10 years ago. In the 2002 case. So now, kindly explain to me how the FCC, as msanthrope Apr 2014 #12

Correct, the FCC classified ISPs as an "information service", not a telecom...EXACTLY as I said Maven Apr 2014 #13

Yes--it actually does need a legal reason to change its own rules. That's how a democracy works. msanthrope Apr 2014 #14

No, actually, you did not give me such a ruling. Maven Apr 2014 #16

I understand you backing down. But I really would like for you to tell us all exactly the legal msanthrope Apr 2014 #17

I'm not backing down at all. You're simply wrong, you don't understand how to read the decision Maven Apr 2014 #18

Again...tell me the legal justification for the rule change. It's a pretty simple question, and you msanthrope Apr 2014 #20

see e.g. NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION ET AL v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES ET AL Maven Apr 2014 #22

What? You've cited an opinion where SCOTUS agrees that the classification of "information services" msanthrope Apr 2014 #23

You're confusing the holding of the case with its outcome. Maven Apr 2014 #24

Um, no. Your problem is that you still haven't provided a legal basis for changing the msanthrope Apr 2014 #25

Not because it feels like doing so. Maven Apr 2014 #27

If there are plenty of legal arguments, then would you please LIST THEM????? msanthrope Apr 2014 #28

I'll jump in here: the FCC does not have "complete discretion" to change a previous position onenote Apr 2014 #32

LOL. It's so refreshing to read the words of people like Sanders and Warren Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #8

Oh...I'm waiting for the legal analysis of the appeal from this thread..... msanthrope Apr 2014 #9

The words of Sanders... Maven Apr 2014 #11

Nice article where the Republicans express their dislike of Wheeler for proposing more regulations.. msanthrope Apr 2014 #15

His nomination was music to the telecom industry's ears Maven Apr 2014 #19

Indeed--and Wheeler proposed regulations against AT&T when they tried to merge. The fact msanthrope Apr 2014 #21

Warren, Sanders and Franken....sellouts ALL!!! Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #4

UNDER THE BUS!!! And godamn the FCC for obeying the courts!!! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #5

And once again The Group sides with Corp-America. The FCC just another tool for Corp-America. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #29

I've told you I am sort of an administrative law hobbyist. joshcryer Apr 2014 #31

The problem is, Josh, andyou have captured it, is that there's the 2002 directive. Plus the msanthrope Apr 2014 #35

On the same page. joshcryer Apr 2014 #36

Obama? Favoring corporate interests over those of his electorate, in one of his picks!? villager Apr 2014 #26

Obama pledged to have the most bi-partisan cabinet ever. joshcryer Apr 2014 #30

that's not all we got, pal. nt grasswire Apr 2014 #33

It sure is. joshcryer Apr 2014 #34